Being the state has it benefits. Not only does it get to pass legislation but it also has a monopoly on determining whether or not that legislation is even legal. Case in point, the state passed legislation granting itself the power to wiretap Americans without a warrant. When Americans challenge the law the state said, “Naw man, it’s all good.” and ruled such powers were not only legal but also that the serfs couldn’t sue the federal government for exercising them:
The federal government may spy on Americans’ communications without warrants and without fear of being sued, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a decision reversing the first and only case that successfully challenged President George W. Bush’s once-secret Terrorist Surveillance Program.
“This case effectively brings to an end the plaintiffs’ ongoing attempts to hold the executive branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization,” a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. (.pdf)
One cannot achieve liberty when the entity that infringes on liberties is allowed to hold all of the cards. When an individual attempts to challenge a state’s decree they must beg the state itself. How much sense would it make to enter into a contract that stated the other party has the right to make any change to the contract at any point and then gets to determine if those changes are valid? That’s what social contract theory states and the ruling on warrantless wiretapping demonstrates why it’s a dumb idea.
One thought on “Making the Rules and Determining if They’re Legal”
“How much sense would it make to enter into a contract that stated the other party has the right to make any change to the contract at any point and then gets to determine if those changes are valid?”
It wouldn’t. Which is precisely why the “social contract” theory relies on the nonsense that is “implicit consent”.
Comments are closed.